Erick Howard resentencing delayed

Erick Howard will not be resentenced anytime soon. The Stark County prosecutor’s office is challenging the recent appeals ruling in the former high school football standout’s case.

Ed Balint

The Stark County Prosecutor’s office is asking an appeals court to reconsider its recent ruling that a former high school football standout be resentenced on his convictions for robbery and rape.

And it’s taking the unusual step of asking all six 5th District Court of Appeals judges to review the ruling made by a three-judge panel.

Earlier this month, the appeals court upheld the jury’s convictions of Erick Howard, the former Hoover High School star and Ohio’s two-time Mr. Football.

The prosecutor’s office says that the ruling was incorrect in implying the 30-year sentence was vindictive because the defendant had turned down a plea agreement for a 12-year sentence.

“This case presents an important issue ... for a myriad of cases throughout the appellate district,” wrote Mark Caldwell, assistant Stark County prosecutor.

If the case is heard by the full court, both the prosecution and the defense would make oral arguments.

PLEA OFFER

In February 2012, Stark County Common Pleas Judge Taryn Heath sentenced Howard after a jury convicted him of rape, kidnapping, aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary. All of the charges also had firearm specifications.

The three-judge appeals panel had ruled the case must be sent back to Heath for a resentencing hearing at a later date. That had been scheduled for early June, but now will be delayed. Even with a resentencing, it’s possible Howard’s sentence wouldn’t change.

The recent appeals court ruling cited concern about the discussions in court that day, including “the statements that even if Howard were to agree to plead on the day of trial he would receive a more severe penalty” than the 12-year offer.

“While we in no way imply that the trial court is limited to sentencing Howard to the sentence offered during plea negotiations ... the trial court must not give the appearance that it was punishing the defendant for exercising his constitutional right to a jury trial and must not impose any punishment solely because a defendant chose to stand trial rather than plead guilty,” the ruling said.

Caldwell, the assistant prosecutor, wrote that “Howard’s case was no different than thousands of criminal cases in the county. The state makes a plea offer to the defendant (who can accept it or stand trial).”

Trial courts often review the terms of plea offers and note that the defendant may receive a longer sentence than the one he or she turned down, Caldwell wrote.

MORE EVIDENCE

Also, the trial court gave reasons for imposing the greater sentence, he said in the new filing.

The primary reasons were tied to the evidence presented at trial, which the court did not have during the plea negotiations, Caldwell wrote. Howard’s demeanor during the trial also was mentioned.

The court record “does not support any inference that the court was punishing Howard for not standing trial,” the motion says.

Caldwell also cited U.S. Supreme Court rulings that he says support his argument.

Depending on whether the motion is granted, he said, it’s possible the prosecutor’s office could appeal the 5th District ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Howard’s attorney said Thursday that he has not decided whether to appeal the ruling to the state’s high court.